Assignment 8 part 1&2

 1. How does M.L. King argue that segregation laws are unjust?

King believes that segregation laws are unjust because they degrades people of a certain race and color. Segregation laws are morally wrong and give one rights to mistreat them because of their skin color. It makes a particular race into a subject of a hate crime. This will give people legal rights to abuse a certain types of people, where it is also morally wrong. The outcomes will just be worse by making this into a law.

2. Why, according to King, should we disobey unjust laws?

According to King disobeying laws is just when you are breaking unjust laws. And for him breaking the law is for the equality for all people. He defines law and the different categories of laws and then the difference between just and unjust. He says that an unjust law definition is that any law that degrades human personality. He believes that we should disobey unjust laws because it is going against ones of different color; race and such, all laws should be equal to all people.

3. How does Aquinas determine if a law is just or unjust?

Aquinas believes that a law is nothing else than an ordinance of reason for common good. Laws can be unjust in two ways according to Aquinas one is by “being contrary to human good”(Aquinas) such as acts of violence rather than laws. And laws maybe unjust “through being opposed to the divine good”(Aquinas). 

4. How would a Legal Positivist judge segregation laws?

A legal Positivist would not oppose segregation laws, because it is a written decision made by the government. They would considered it and since it’s a law they would want everyone to follow it.

Part # 2

Yes the fact King wound up in jail proved that unjust law however remains laws. You can disagree on something whether it is just or unjust, unless it is legally subjected to change it is still considered a law. This goes against what  Augustine  stated because even though King considered this law unjust the fact he ended up in jail for breaking the law because until proven otherwise it was still a law.